State ex rel. Meilstrup v. Indus. Comm., 2017 Ohio 811

Relator David Meilstrup sustained a 2005 work injury with multiple allowed conditions (including bilateral epicondylitis, left ulnar neuropathy, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy) and underwent several surgeries.
In Sept. 2012 Meilstrup filed a C-86 seeking scheduled loss-of-use compensation for his upper extremities; his treating physician Dr. Hochman opined he had "lost functional use" of his upper extremities.
An independent medical exam by Dr. Elizabeth Mease (Nov. 9, 2012) found largely preserved range of motion, mild allodynia, no atrophy, and concluded only a "mild loss of use" of the left upper extremity (not total loss).
Dr. John Nemunaitis (June 27, 2012) similarly found near-normal ROM, independence in ADLs, only mild allodynia and pain with functional use of the left arm; quantified impairment but did not find total loss.
A DHO initially awarded a one-half loss-of-use for the left arm citing the reports of Mease, Nemunaitis, and Hochman; the SHO vacated that award and denied the scheduled loss claim, finding Mease and Nemunaitis more persuasive than Hochman.
Meilstrup pursued mandamus relief in the court of appeals challenging the commission's denial; the court independently reviewed the record, found "some evidence" (notably Dr. Mease) supporting the commission, overruled objections, and denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the commission abused its discretion in denying a scheduled total loss-of-use award for the left upper extremity	Meilstrup: treating physician Hochman shows he has, "for all intents and purposes," lost use of his upper extremities	Commission: IME reports (Mease and Nemunaitis) show preserved ROM, independence in ADLs, only mild loss/pain — thus no total loss	Denied mandamus — court finds some evidence (Dr. Mease) supports the denial, so no abuse of discretion
Whether the magistrate applied the correct legal standard ("some evidence" vs. stricter standard)	Meilstrup: magistrate applied wrong standard	Commission: correct standard is whether some evidence supports the commission's finding	Court: magistrate applied proper law; independent review confirms "some evidence" standard controls and was satisfied

State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (establishes mandamus requirements against the Industrial Commission)
State ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (mandamus lies when commission's order is unsupported by any evidence)
State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (no mandamus where some evidence supports commission)
State ex rel. Varney v. Industrial Commission, 143 Ohio St.3d 181 (explains medical-evidence standard for total loss-of-use awards)
State ex rel. Alcoa Bldg. Prods. v. Industrial Commission, 102 Ohio St.3d 341 (interprets "for all practical purposes" standard for scheduled loss awards)
State ex rel. Gassmann v. Industrial Commission, 41 Ohio St.2d 64 (historical extension of "loss" to nonseverance situations)
State ex rel. Walker v. Industrial Commission, 58 Ohio St.2d 402 (same historical context as Gassmann)
State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial Commission, 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (credibility and weight of evidence are for the commission)
State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (mandamus prerequisites articulated)